The consequences and conclusions of Fallibilism are not new. The problem of criterion and justification remain unsolved.
That you have evidence and that you can justify your beliefs is not doubted - what is doubted is the sufficiency of the justification.
How does one justify that the justification is sufficient?

The consequences were pointed out by Hans Albert in 1968 (colloquially known as the Münchhausen trilemma), but the idea is by no means original. It goes at least as far back as the Pyrrhoneans.

Empiricism and and inductivism are not "wrong" as such. They are just pragmatic workarounds to the inadequacies of other epistemic theories.
The limits of empiricism/inductivism are understood and the risk can be managed.

It is all we've got and they work as well as they do given the circumstances we find ourselves in.It is better than nothing.